Q. Okay. Are you -- do you know that each of the
current Dover Area School Board members who voted for the
curriculum change, which is a subject matter of this lawsuit,
placed before this Court a declaration, an affidavit that they
had neither seen nor heard of the Wedge document before the
lawsuit was filed?

Q. Now I want to go back into your relationship
with some of the parties in this lawsuit. As you are aware, the
American Civil Liberties Union is involved in proceeding with
this lawsuit, are you aware of that?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor. The ACLU is
not a party to this lawsuit, they are counsel in this
lawsuit.

THE COURT: He not making a ruling. Second of all,
I don't think it's relevant, and I'm going to sustain the
objection. A cognizable reason for the question is not a tit for
a tat. It's whether or not it's admissible. It's not on the
grounds of relevancy. Now we're going to get a feel.

The Court is familiar with the ACLU. She's
testified that she's a member of the ACLU for a period of time. I
think questions that relate to her bias or motivation on the
First Amendment issue, of which you asked her, I think, are fair
game, and you can elaborate on that, but we're hot going to go
into -- we could be here for days if we get into other activities
of the ACLU and whether she's familiar or not as to bias. So I'm
going to sustain the objection.

A. When I was on the Board, it seems like they
were mostly cases involving the rights of prisoners. There was
one, I remember, it was a free speech rights of a gentleman on a
radio station or something like that.

Q. Did you ever, during your involvement as a
member of the ACLU, ask for help?

Q. And what were the circumstances for your
request for assistance from the ACLU?

A. I notified the ACLU of an occasion when, in
about 1994, in the parish, Livingston Parish, where I reside,
where my children were in school, a group of creationists
attempted to have a creationist curriculum guide adopted in my
children's school system to be used in the science classes.

A. I just alerted them to this. I called them and
indicated that this was happening. And at the time I didn't -- I
don't think I requested anything specific. I just wanted them to
know about this in case I did need help.

Q. Did you oppose the creation insertion into the
curriculum at that time?

A. I'm sorry. When you asked me the question
previously, I thought you meant a dues paying member. That's what
I can't remember. I've been on the National Advisory Council for
several years, although, maybe since 2001.

A. It's been inactive since -- there are meetings,
but they're all at times when I cannot go. The only thing that
I've actually done as a member of the National Advisory Council
is, a couple of times, the ACLU wrote letters to state officials
in Louisiana and I would cosign the letters. Other than that,
it's actually their board that does all the work.

Q. Okay. And what is the responsibility of an
advisory council member?

A. Actually to support the organization's task of
protecting the constitutional separation of church and state. And
one of the ways we are nominated for positions on the advisory
council is when we have helped to promote the constitutional
separation of church and states.

A. I don't have them memorized, sir. In fact, I'm
not even sure how NOSHA has worded theirs. Generally, it's in
line with the statement of principles by the Council for Secular
Humanism with which they are affiliated.

MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, may I approach the
witness? I want to give her a copy.

A. Quote, The New Orleans Secular Humanist
Association is dedicated to raising the awareness of people of
the Gulf Coast region to the ideals and values of secular
humanism. We are an affiliate of the Council for Secular
Humanism, a member of the Alliance of Secular Humanist Societies,
Associate of the American Humanist Association, an affiliate of
American Atheists, and member of the Atheist Alliance
International.

Q. Thank you. And that under statement of
principles, please read the first sentence?

A. Quote, We reject efforts to denigrate human
intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms,
and to look outside nature for salvation, end quote.

A. This is the mission statement of the Council
for Secular Humanism. And it begins this way. Quote, The Council
for Secular Humanism cultivates rational inquiry, ethical values,
and human development through the advancement of secular
humanism.

To carry out its mission, the Council for Secular
Humanism sponsors publications, programs, and organizes meetings
and other group activities. The council's specific objectives are
to promote secular humanist principles to the public, media, and
policy makers; to provide secular humanist activities and
communities to serve the needs of non-religious people and to
foster human enrichment; to demonstrate the viability of the
secular humanism eupraxophy as an alternative naturalistic
life-stance; to engage in research relating to the critical
examination of religious and supernatural claims and the humanist
outlook; to conduct educational programs for all age levels, end
quote.

Q. Now what is your definition of movement as you
have used it when you talked about the intelligent design
movement?

A. It's an organized program that carries out the
goal of the program. That's the way I understand it here.

Q. Now would you agree that the material that you
just read would qualify the Council for Secular Humanism as a
movement?

A. There is such a thing as the humanist movement,
yes. I've seen reference to that, sure.

Q. And based upon what you read, they are doing
some of the same things as you claim the intelligent design
movement is doing but for their own ideological goals, is that
right?

A. No, sir, I don't think they're doing the same
thing here. They are not promoting a religious view as science.
They're not doing that.

A. Okay. It's entitled, What is Secular Humanism?
Quote, Secular humanism is a term which has come into use in the
last 30 years to describe a world view with the following
elements and principles:

The first one is a conviction that dogmas,
ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or
social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not
simply accepted on faith.

Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual
evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry rather than faith and
mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to
important human questions.

A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and
creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

The constant search for objective truth with the
understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter
our imperfect perception of it.

A concern for this life and a commitment to making
it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our
history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the
outlooks of those who differ from us.

A search for viable individual social, and
political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their
ability to enhance human well-being and individual
responsibility. Shall I continue to the second page?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I think we have to be really
careful with where we're going with this because I think we're
reaching the point where Mr. Thompson is trying to impeach Dr.
Forrest and her credibility based on religious views, and that is
specifically proscribed by Rule 610 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence.

I think that's where we're -- you know, I
understand Mr. Thompson has a point to make equating Dr.
Forrest's views which what she's testified about intelligent
design, but as we're talking -- the kind of questions he just
asked are going beyond that, and I think simply asking her
religious belief in order to address her credibility. I can't see
what else they go to.

MR. THOMPSON: They do go to the fact that this is
a religious doctrine that she is espousing and why she is
testifying today.

THE COURT: Well, I'll note that Rule 610 does say,
Rule 610 does not -- or the commentary, I should say, to Rule 610
says that it does not preclude the admission of evidence of
religious beliefs when the evident is relevant in a manner other
than to show that the witness's trustworthness is enhanced or
diminished by virtue of the belief.

And the rule does not prevent evidence tending to
demonstrate bias or interest in the part of the witness. So we've
got an expert witness, and colorably it goes to bias. I'm not
sure if it's a blanket prohibition in the case of this witness
that you read it to be.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: And, Your Honor, I just want to be
careful here because I do understand that this is a case about
religion and it may be relevant in some areas, including to this
exert. But I think the questions that Mr. Thompson just asked,
does she believe in the immortality of the soul, I can't imagine
how that connects to any issue relating to her testimony.

I think it just is questioning her about her
religious beliefs, and I think we need to be careful that we're
not violating this rule here.

MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, I understand that is
sensitive. I only have a few more questions in this area. And it
goes really to the idea that she has attacked the Defendants'
position based upon the fact they're Christians.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I object to that characterization
because that's not the nature of her testimony at all.

THE COURT: I understand that. And you can argue
that. That's something that I'll have to decide. But was there --
you'll have to tell me, was there a question on the floor? Were
you objecting to the line of questions?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: There was a question, and I won't
repeat it exactly, and maybe it should be read back, but it asked
her whether she believes in the immortality of the soul. And I
--

THE COURT: Let's go back, Wendy, and look at the
question that was on the floor and take the objection as specific
to that question.

A. This book documents the manner in which the
Center for Science and Culture is executing the Wedge Strategy.
It looks at how the phases of that strategy are being executed,
the activities that are part of that execution.

My co-author has analyzed the purportedly
scientific claims made by intelligent design proponents. We have
also documented the fact that they are a religious movement, but
that they are creationists. And we explain the significance of
this information to the readers.

Q. You started the book with some comments that,
to me anyway, reflect your attitude about the creationist
movement. And I want to read from page 8. You can follow me.

Q. And you have, Under cover of advanced degrees,
including a few in science obtained in some of the major
universities, the Wedge's workers have been carving out a -- out
a habitable and expanding niche within higher education,
cultivating cells of followers. Is that a political
statement?

A. Yes, they are cultivating followers on
university campuses. They are certainly not a large majority.
They are small groups. Keep in mind, I have a co-author, and
sometimes these are his words as well.

Q. They're pretty -- you would agree that that is
pretty polemic, isn't it?

A. Depending on how you read it. It's not intended
to be inflammatory. It's intended to be descriptive.

Q. Well, later on in the same paragraph, you have,
armed with a potentially huge base of popular support that
includes most of the religious right, wielding a new legal
strategy with which it hopes to win in the litigation certain to
follow, insertion of ID into public schools science anywhere, and
lawyers ready to go to work when it does. The wedge of ID
creationism is indeed intelligently designed.

Is that sentence there to alert people to the
dangers of intelligent design?

Q. Before you even started this book, you already
had come to the conclusion that intelligent design was a danger,
had you not?

A. I believe that intelligent design is harmful to
the process of educating children, and I believe that it's
harmful to the separation of church and state if it is inserted
into a public school as science.

Q. And you started with that idea before you did
your research for the book?

A. I had some understanding of what the Center for
the Renewal of Science and Culture was about, and at that point
when the -- the understanding I had at the time, yes, it was not
something I agreed with.

Q. And then on page 11 of that book, down about
two-thirds of the way, you state, quote, We also believe that its
ultimate goal --

Q. Okay. We also believe that its ultimate goal is
to create a theocratic state. Do you believe that?

A. Yes, I do. I think the Wedge document indicates
that that is the goal. It's stated in the Wedge Strategy.

Q. And so your belief is that this Wedge strategy,
which you have outlined in detail during your direct examination,
is there to create a theocratic state?

A. I think if the goals of the Wedge Strategy were
fulfilled, that is what we would have. The Wedge Strategy makes
very strong statements that what they hope to do is to overturn
the culture that has been degraded by scientific materialism and
moral relativism. They hope to reestablish it or renew it on a
foundation based on their own religious beliefs.

Q. Well, in your deposition, you also indicated
that you felt that that statement meant they were taking over all
three branches of government?

A. No, I did not say they were taking over all
three branches of government. I indicated that one understanding
of theocracy is when people in government are put into positions
of political authority, and those positions are determined or
their position there is determined by their religious
beliefs.

A. If the government is controlled by people who
are in position in order to act on their own religious beliefs,
yes, that would be a theocratic state, to fashion policies around
those religious preferences.

Q. Well, you have the legislative branch of
government that may make a law, which the judicial branch of
government says is unconstitutional, is that correct?

A. Under the constitution, we have a system of
checks and balances. The constitution sets that up.

Q. And before a theocratic state could be
implemented, it would mean that all three branches of government
would have to cooperate with the Wedge Strategy, is that
correct?

A. In its totality, yes. There are areas, of
course, on a smaller scale in which people in positions of
authority could be acting on their own political preferences. So
I would say that you would have degrees of that. It's not a
matter of all or nothing.

Q. But the reason you wrote this book was your
concern for the implementation of a theocratic state by the Wedge
Strategy?

A. I'm concerned about the statement by the Wedge
Strategy, the people who are promoting it, that what they hope to
do is completely overturn what they consider a materialistic
culture. Those are their statements.

A. Insofar as they might attempt to have a
particular view implemented as public policy, I think there might
be some particular problem, if you're talking about an about a
religious view. Simple attempts to persuade are not a
problem.

A. That is a two-paragraph statement that was
written by Phillip Johnson. It was inserted by Senator Rick
Santorum into the No Child Left Behind Act the day before the
Senate voted on it. It was eventually removed and placed into the
legislative history of the bill after some very slight
rewording.

A. The Santorum Amendment, in paraphrase, says
that, generally students should be taught the difference between
the testable ideas of science and philosophical or religious
ideas that are presented in the name of science, and that
whenever controversial subjects such as evolution are taught,
children should be instructed as to why those issues are
controversial. It specifically mentions biological evolution.

Q. Doesn't it basically say that, whenever
biological evolution is taught, students should be made aware of
the controversy?

A. That students should be made aware of why that
is a controversial issue.

A. It depends on how you're using the controversy.
If you're talking about, if they should be made aware of a
controversy within science about the status of evolution, that
would not be correct. So depends on how you intend controversy to
be understood. Maybe you need to explain it to me.

Q. Well, I'm just trying to find out what Senator
Santorum meant by this.

Q. And I'll have you read a few sentences in that
section, starting with the first sentence under there. Under the
subtitle The Santorum Amendment?

A. Yes. Quote, The May 2000 briefing was clearly
the beginning of the Wedge's plan to influence science and
science education policy at the national level. The events of
June 2001 confirmed this assessment. On June 13th, 2001,
Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum introduced Amendment No.
7992S1, The Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, along
with its House companion, HR1, The No Child Left Behind Act of
2001.

This piece of legislation was a major revision of
the elementary and secondary education act overhauling federal
education programs. Santorum added his amendment to the bill only
one day before the Senate was to hold a final vote after six
weeks of debate.

Recognized on the floor at the U.S. Senate by
Senator Edward Kennedy, Santorum rose to explain his amendment.
Quote, I rise to talk about my amendment, which is a sense of the
Senate that deals with the subject of intellectual freedom with
respect to the teaching of science in the classroom in primary
and secondary education.

It is the sense of the Senate that does not try to
dictate curriculum to anybody. Quite the contrary. It says, there
should be freedom to discuss and air good scientific debate
within the classroom. In fact, students will do better and will
learn more if there is this intellectual freedom to discuss.

It is simply two sentences. Frankly, two rather
innocuous sentences that, hopefully, this Senate will embrace.
This is a quote of the sentences. Quote, It is the sense of the
Senate that, one, good science education should prepare students
to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from
philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of
science; and, two, where biological evolution is taught, the
curriculum should help students to understand why this subject
generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the
students to be informed participants in public discussions
regarding the subject. Shall I continue?

Q. I thought I did. I'll have to find it. I'll
withdraw that question for the time being. Now your objections to
the biology curriculum change, I believe, is that it infiltrates
religion into the science classroom?

A. I'm sorry. Are you referring to a change
generally or in this specific biology curriculum?

Q. The biology curriculum of the Dover Area School
Board that included the one-minute statement?

A. Insofar as it presents intelligent design as an
alternative theory, it is presenting a religious belief as an
alternative scientific theory. That is my objection.

Q. And if it were shown to you that intelligent
design does not require a supernatural creator, would you change
your mind?

A. Intelligent design, as it is espoused by the
proponents of intelligent design, the movement, does involve a
supernatural creator. Intelligent design, in a non-controversial
sense, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about --

Q. If a scientist such as Michael Behe testifies
that intelligent design does not require a supernatural creator,
will you then withdraw your objections to intelligent design
being mentioned in that one-minute statement?

A. I would want to have some positive sense what
he meant by that. I would want to know more than just, does it
require a supernatural creator. I would want to know the sense in
which he was using it.

Q. That's what I want to find out. What is your
objections to intelligent design? You are not a scientist. But
what are your objections to intelligent design if it does not
include the concept of a supernatural creator?

A. Intelligent design, as it is understood by the
proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a
supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am
objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has
defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined
intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious.
They involve the supernatural.

Q. Well, a lot of the evolutionists also have
philosophical or religious statements attached to their theory,
is that correct?

Q. If they attach a philosophical or religious
component to the theory of evolution?

A. It's not within my purview to object to anybody
attaching a philosophical view to their understanding of
evolution. But I don't believe that your -- I'm not sure, are you
referring just to their personal decision to attach a
philosophical view to their understanding of evolution? Anyone
has the right to do that. I don't object to that.

Q. And if intelligent design advocates or
theorists happen to attach a religious component or, excuse me, a
religious explanation for their theory, would you object to
that?

A. That isn't what they're doing. They're not
attaching a religious component. Intelligent design is, in
essence, a religious belief. It is not a scientific belief with a
religious component attached to it.

Q. Well, that's one of the issues that we are
going to have the experts testify to. But you will admit, will
you not, that many prominent evolutionists have philosophical
claims based on their understanding of the theory of
evolution?

Q. And so that you have the late Gaylord Simpson
who said, man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic
process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. End
quote. Are you aware of that claim that he made?

A. Evolution, as a natural process, is not
something that you can interpret as having a particular purpose
or goal. That idea simply is not a scientific one. Now you might
incorporate the idea of evolution into a larger philosophical
understanding. And it is my estimation that that's what Gaylord
Simpson was doing.

Q. Well, you quote, you have a section in your
book on the first -- let me start. Do you know who Steven
Wineberg is?

Q. Okay. Now are you aware of this comment by
Professor Wineberg? Quote, I personally feel that the teaching of
modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I'm all for
that. One of the things that, in fact, has driven me in my life
is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of
science--to free people from superstition, end quote. Are you
aware of that statement that Professor Wineberg --

A. If he is saying that -- I'm sorry. If you're
asking -- are you asking me if I were aware of it? Yes. If you
want to know whether I agree or disagree with it, I would ask you
to please read it to me again.

Q. Sure. Quote, I personally feel that the
teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and
I'm all for that. One of the things that, in fact, has driven me
in my life is the feeling that this is one of the great social
functions of science--to free people from superstition, end
quote.

Q. But she is making philosophical and, I believe,
religious claims in the area of science, would you agree with
that?

A. She signed that statement as a personal act on
her part. That is not what she does as the director of the
National Center for Science Education. She does not promote her
personal preferences as head of that organization. She promotes
the principles of good science education.

Q. But she is a very outspoken person with regard
to teaching of Darwinism, is she not?

A. She's a very forceful defender of teaching
science as it should be taught.

Q. And she does everything she can as the director
to prevent intelligent design from being included in the science
education?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'm not sure that changes that
they're not things -- she didn't make comments to that effect. I
mean, I think the issue, just for clarity, is that those are
words from, I think, the humans manifesto, which apparently she
had signed onto. The witness doesn't even know that is so.

THE COURT: So you're saying they're
mischaracterized as direct quotes?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: It's very unclear. I think the
witness was confused about what comments are being referred to,
and I'm not --

Q. Based on the comments that he made regarding
the philosophical and quasi-religious, I guess, nature of
evolution and modern science, do you believe that that would
exclude Darwinism as a scientific theory?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'm just going to object to the
characterization, Your Honor.

A. I don't think the comments that he made, his
personal statements about science have that much to do with the
status of evolutionary theory. And, I'm sorry, I don't see the
connection that you're trying to make.

Q. Okay. I think you answered my question. And
then regarding Eugenia Scott, you know she's the director of the
National Center for Science Education, and she is a notable
signer of the humanist Manifesto 3. To accurately characterize
that, the humanist manifesto makes proceed philosophical
statements such as, quote, Humans are the result of unguided
evolutionary change. And then further again, the manifesto --

Q. Okay. And Eugenia Scott is an outspoken
advocate of teaching Darwin's theory?

A. She is an outspoken advocate of teaching
evolutionary theory in public science class, yes.

Q. Based upon the methodology you used in
excluding statements -- excuse me. Withdraw that. Based upon the
methodology you use to conclude that statements made by Dembski
or Steven Myers or Jonathan Wells should exclude intelligent
design from public education, why would that same methodology not
be used to exclude Darwinism from public education?

A. If you will permit me, sir, let me please make
a distinction in what I think these people are doing. And I don't
think you're representing Eugenia Scott's position accurately.
Eugenia Scott's signed the humanist manifesto as a personal act
on her part. She is quite cognizant, and she has expressed this
many times, of the difference between what she can assert as a
scientist and what she can assert as a citizen with philosophical
preferences.

She has many times expressed that distinction. She
is quite aware of it. In fact, she does not use her position as
director of the National Center for Science Education to promote
her particular personal viewpoints. She is adamantly against
doing that.

In fact, she was the most important person in
persuading the National Association of Biology Teachers to take
language of that sort out of their statement. She is quite aware
that there are many personal viewpoints people can take, and she
has stated many times that one must recognize a distinction
between what one can say as a scientist and what one says as a
private citizen expressing a philosophical preference.

She does not do the same thing that, I believe,
Dr. Dembski and his intelligent design associates are doing.

Q. I guess then, what methodology do you use to
exclude the same kind of consideration from Dr. Dembski and
others that you used to exclude Eugenia Scott's philosophical and
religious comments?

THE WITNESS: In Dr. Dembski's case, it is not a
matter of his having a scientific viewpoint which can be defended
and a philosophical viewpoint attached to that. His viewpoint
regarding intelligent design is at its core, in its essence, a
religious viewpoint, not a scientific one.

What I object to is his presenting that as a
scientific theory that should be offered to students in a science
class. I don't think there is any analogy at all between what he
is doing and what Eugenia Scott does. And part of my job as a
philosopher is to make those distinctionss clear.

Q. Well, I think you've already indicated that you
are not a scientist, correct?

A. I'm not a scientist, but I am an educated
person who understands the way science works. That's not hard to
understand.

Q. And you are not -- you are not an expert in
science to the extent that you can evaluate Michael Behe's
concept of irreducible complexity, are you?

A. I have never claimed to be a scientific expert
evaluating Dr. Behe's statements about irreducible complexity.
That is not within my expertise.

Q. Okay. And so you continue to say that
intelligent design is not science without you personally being
able to evaluate the scientific claims of Dr. Michael Behe, is
that correct?

A. My understanding of intelligent design as
science is a position that I can defend without having to address
the particular scientific claims. Those have been very well
addressed by Professor Miller. What I know about intelligent
design is that it is defined by its own leaders in religious
terms. And any idea that is defined by its own leaders in
religious terms as requiring a supernatural creator is not a
scientific idea. That's simply basic elementary science.

Q. That's what I'm getting at. You excuse Eugenia
Scott and Steve Wineberg when they talked about their scientific
theories and religious and philosophical terms, but you will not
give the same benefit to those in the intelligent design
movement, is that true?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection. Mischaracterizes the
statements that Mr. Thompson has just been quoting.

THE COURT: Well, he has her on cross. And I think
it's a fair question on cross. I'll overrule the objection. You
may answer.

THE WITNESS: Would you repeat it, please, the one
that you just asked?

THE WITNESS: They're not doing the same thing,
sir. Eugenia Scott is not advocating that her personal
philosophical preferences be taught to school children in a
public school science class as science. She insists that the
evolutionary biology that has withstood scientific testing now
for 150 years be taught.

Dr. Dembski and his associates in the intelligent
design movement are asking that their view, which is, at its
essence, a religious view, be offered to children as science. So
that is not what Eugenia Scott is doing.

Q. Well, I don't want to keep on going around as
to whether intelligent design is a religious view or a scientific
theory. But you will agree, will you not, that any analysis must
clearly make distinctions between religious motivations of the ID
proponents and the religious implications of intelligent design
theory?

A. What I am talking about is the essence of
intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as
defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite
apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the
definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos
theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own.

Q. Well, didn't the president of Americans United
for Separation of Church and State also use the Logos theology by
saying, God could have said, evolve?

Q. And you would not take statements that he made
from his theology background and say, because he's made those
statements, that that now impunes or destroys everything he is
saying from his mathematical background?

A. It would depend on what he is specifically
saying, sir. He says many things in which he expresses
theological views, and those are part of the definition of
intelligent design as he has given it. He doesn't seem to make
the distinction.

MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, there were several
exhibits that had Touchstone magazine articles in them, and they
were referring to religious statements. And my point is that
because Mr. -- Dr. Dembski is a theologian as well as a
scientist, he may be talking in religious terms because of the
context and the venue of the commentary.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'm just asking for some clarity.
There's articles. There's interviews. At least to the testimony,
we focused on articles of Mr. Dembski. I just wanted some clarity
on what exactly we're talking about.

THE COURT: Well, I think the question went to the
various writings of Mr. Dembski that you put up, and I'll -- go
ahead.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I mean, he talked about responding
to reporters. I just think we need some clarity. I'm not saying
he hasn't talked to reporters. But the specific statements by Dr.
Dembski that Dr. Forrest discussed were, in fact, articles. I
just think, for Dr. Forrest's benefit, there should be some
clarity. Are we talking about articles? Are we talking about
interviews?

MR. THOMPSON: I can clarify it, Your Honor. She's
the one that saw the articles and commented on them.

THE COURT: Well, do you want to hone your question
or can you hone your question to the responses that Mr. Dembski
gave to reporters or would it relate to his scholarly
writings?

Q. You expect that Dr. Dembski would have to say
that, I'm now going to be talking about philosophy or religion,
when he's published that article in a religious magazine versus,
you know, his scientific views?

A. First of all, Dr. Dembski is not a scientist.
He has no formal credentials in science. You mischaracterized him
a minute ago as a scientist, which he is not. When he explains
intelligent design in terms -- when he defines it in a religious
sense, that indicates to me that he's not speaking scientifically
at all.

If intelligent design were a scientific theory, he
would never have to use religion to explain it. But he does that
quite often. In fact, in his book, Intelligent Design, The Bridge
Between Science and Theology, he explains intelligent design to
the lay audience, to the non-scientific audience. And in that
book, that book is pervasive overtly religious and he explains it
as an overtly religious idea.

Q. Let's correct the characterization of Dr.
Dembski as a scientist. You don't believe he's a scientist. He's
a mathematician though, isn't he?

A. He's not a scientist. He's a mathematician, a
philosopher, and a Christian apologest.

Q. Or he could be discussing intelligent design
wearing his mathematician's hat, correct?

A. If he's discussing intelligent design wearing
his mathematician's, then he's discussing a religious idea
wearing his mathematician's hat because intelligent design, as he
has defined it, is a religious idea. It's not a mathematical
idea. It's not a biological idea.

Q. Again, that's a question that we will address
as to whether it is science or not. But right now, what I'm
trying to discover is the methodology you use for excusing
Darwinists who use philosophical terms and make philosophical
statements based upon their science and the methodology you use
for not excusing intelligent design theorists when they make
philosophical statements and religious comments?

A. My methodology is to simply make a very careful
distinction between people who are not doing the same thing. And
that is part of what we call critical analysis, to clarify ideas
and to make careful distinctions. That's the methodology I'm
using.

Q. Well, Dr. Miller testified in this case that,
quote, God is the author of all things seen and unseen, and that
would certainly include the laws of physics and chemistry, end
quote. Is that a creationist talking?

A. In his own personal viewpoints, I understand
Dr. Miller to be a theistic evolutionist. And that is a position
that intelligent design proponents vehemently object to. They do
not recognize it as a valid position.

Q. When you say, intelligent design advocates
object to it, are you talking about all intelligent design
advocates object to that?

A. Specifically, Dr. William Dembski has stated
that, design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution. And
that is a sentiment shared by at least the major figures in the
intelligent design movement that are the subjects of my
research.

A. Dr. Miller, as I understand him, is not a
creationist. He certainly believes in God. He has been very open
and up front about that. But his view about the science is that
he accepts evolutionary biology, and he finds no inconsistency
between his understandings as a scientist and his viewpoints as a
Roman Catholic.

Q. Well, using your methodology then and accepting
what Dr. Miller has said about God, the creator of all things
seen and unseen, should you disregard anything that Ken Miller
says as unscientific?

A. It would depend, sir, on a specific statement.
I can't make that assessment based on simply a hypothetical, very
general question of the kind that you're giving me.

MR. THOMPSON: And he's also testified, quote, God
is the author of nature and, therefore, I believe that things
that happen in nature are consistent with God's overall plan, and
evolution is a natural process.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Could we make that available to
the witness and allow counsel to look at it?

MR. THOMPSON: Well, Your Honor, I've asked the
question, and it's based on those facts.

THE COURT: Well, at the very least, you should let
Mr. Rothschild see if you took it out of context whether we let
the witness see it or not. So go to the page, Mr. Rothschild,
take a look at it, and see if the question was taken out of
context.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Do you have a page of the
transcript we can look at, Mr. Thompson?

THE COURT: That's what I thought. We're probably
reaching a point where you could wrap it up for today, if you
want to save that, withdraw the question for now, get the
transcript, then you can do it. We have a couple minutes now. You
can pursue something else. But if it is an appropriate break
point --

THE COURT: I would point out, you had referred to
some documents, and Mr. Muise did as well, during his voir dire
questioning, but they were not assigned exhibit numbers. Now I
don't know if it's your intention to put them in, but you might
want to give some attention to that and think about that after we
conclude the witness's testimony tomorrow, and we'll take the
exhibits at that time. All right.

This is an appropriate time then for us to end the
trial day. We will stand in recess, unless counsel, you have
anything further for today?